AuthorTopic: Israel vs The Rest (Read 16232 times)

The site is Turkish but the video kinda speaks for itself.http://www.internethaber.com/news_detail.php?id=173070WARNING: Do not watch if blood makes you faint.WARNING: 18+, I suppose.I gave up watching after 30 seconds. I just couldn't stand it. This is the most disgusting thing I've ever seen. The Saw V? Are you kidding me?

I really don't know how someone could have good feeling towards Israel after seeing stuff like this unless of course if you don't have a heart.

Looks to me like this is an attack on Islam and its coming from outside and within this faith .The Wests War on Terror , Israel and Islamicists are slowly destroying this religion , moderate people of all faith and none need to step up to the plate and end this Holy War ?And learn to live in peace and respect each other .Only a political solution can end this war ?There also needs to be an end to all forms of religious fundamentalism , Jaw Jaw not War War .

It's not like it's a secret. After all, they do call Israel the 52nd state. The UK being the 51st of course.

What concerns the UK, there`s an article called Better Off As 51st State by Larry Elliot published in the Guardian, June 3, 1996, which proves the same idea. Nobody is insisting on it, but as you see, clever people write about it.

What concerns the UK, there`s an article called Better Off As 51st State by Larry Elliot published in the Guardian, June 3, 1996, which proves the same idea. Nobody is insisting on it, but as you see, clever people write about it.

I think it is crucial when discussing Israel's "right to exist" that it is understood what is meant by that when the question is asked. First of all, the "right to exist" is not a legitimate term in international law. In other words, no state demands the right to exist and no state's existence is recognized under international law. In terms of peace proposals, Palestine has always been in favor of a settlement that would guarantee the existence of the state of Israel in exchange for mutual recognition - a proposal that is supported by practically every country in the world and historically rejected by the United States and Israel. If one looks back at the diplomatic history, they will find that Israel shifted their position when the PLO and the Arab states supported the two-state settlement solution and that shift was characterized by the "right to exist", which meant that Palestinians would not only have to support a solution that would grant Israel statehood (since they already supported that) but, rather, have to acknowledge the legitimacy of the state that dispossessed them from the land. I'm not sure who would support that, nor is there any reason to argue that Israel should be above the standards of international law.

I think it is crucial when discussing Israel's "right to exist" that it is understood what is meant by that when the question is asked. First of all, the "right to exist" is not a legitimate term in international law. In other words, no state demands the right to exist and no state's existence is recognized under international law. In terms of peace proposals, Palestine has always been in favor of a settlement that would guarantee the existence of the state of Israel in exchange for mutual recognition - a proposal that is supported by practically every country in the world and historically rejected by the United States and Israel. If one looks back at the diplomatic history, they will find that Israel shifted their position when the PLO and the Arab states supported the two-state settlement solution and that shift was characterized by the "right to exist", which meant that Palestinians would not only have to support a solution that would grant Israel statehood (since they already supported that) but, rather, have to acknowledge the legitimacy of the state that dispossessed them from the land. I'm not sure who would support that, nor is there any reason to argue that Israel should be above the standards of international law.